W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2015

Re: [css-transitions] Formal definition of canceling and interrupting

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:52:04 -0800
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Message-ID: <20150127205204.GA8150@crum.dbaron.org>
On Thursday 2015-01-22 14:35 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
> I'm inclined to fix this by saying that implementations must
> remember the most recent transition destination for each
> element-property pair that has had a transition, for as long as the
> property value remains at that destination and the property remains
> in 'transition-property', and must not start a second transition to
> the remembered value.
> I believe this restores the invariant that transitions aren't
> triggered by unrelated style changes.
> I realize it might be a bit of an additional cost in memory use, at
> least in a naive implementation.  But I think that:
>  (a) it's probably worth the cost to maintain that invariant (even
>      though it is a bit of an edge case), and
>  (b) assuming that this sort of case is the only thing it changes
>      (which I hope it is), much of the storage could be optimized
>      away in a better implementation.

I've edited the spec accordingly:

I also converted the spec to the bikeshed preprocessor [1], so it
now has a lot more links in it.


[1] https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/

𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 20:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:50 UTC